Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(May 29, 2018 at 11:58 pm)Ybe Wrote: Sorry, here is a response for you. If no G, then no reason 4 responding.
And there are people who say this clown isn't trolling...
That is a better response than yours, and exemplifies how As respond to me.
[/quote]
This caller was an idiot that just keeps talking in circles about a question that is not valid. Proof or evidence if not necessary to be an atheist. Some butt holes with their head up a child killers ass will never ever get this. Sound familiar?
[/quote]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
====================================== YB: The quote thing seems weird.
I was Googling, and happen to run across that video.
It has been my experience here, no proofs.
There are many proofs and evidences given for G. Example of just one. Proof.
There are many others and (also evidences) none of which I am trying to defend or present as to why one should be a theist.
The basics non proofs that atheists have given for the Q. (see first post of this thread) are pretty much like:
" because I don't believe in g(s) and it fits my definition of an A.
"oh, *?&9@* stupid troll"
"I don't believe those many proofs for G"
Or answering the Q with a Q:
" Did G write the B?
" Do you believe in S Us or Ds?"
================================================================
(May 30, 2018 at 12:05 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: Ybe's own statements:
"There is lots of sufficient/convincing evidence for G by the way." #319
-- Despite claiming, multiple times, that he is not here to prove the existence of god. The moment evidence is claimed, evidence needs to be presented. And the claim of "there is lots of sufficient/convincing evidence" is an unsupported claim that your god exists. Poster is a liar with a "hidden" agenda by his own statements.
You are right though, I am not giving proofs for G. I was just pointing out that Ts have presented LOTS of Evidences and proofs
and not just asserting a definition: G is because that is the definition of G.
Quote:First, Gödel axiomatizes the notion of a "positive property":[note 2] for each property φ, either φ or its negation ¬φ must be positive, but not both (axiom 2). If a positive property φ implies a property ψ in each possible world, then ψ is positive, too (axiom 1). Gödel then argues that each positive property is "possibly exemplified", i.e. applies at least to some object in some world (theorem 1). Defining an object to be Godlike if it has all positive properties (definition 1), and requiring that property to be positive itself (axiom 3),[note 3] Gödel shows that in some possible world a Godlike object exists (theorem 2), called "God" in the following.[note 4] Gödel proceeds to prove that a Godlike object exists in every possible world.
There is no such thing as an objectively "positive" property. Godel has erred. And his proof fails because his premising the existence of "positive" properties is unsound.
There are many others and (also evidences) none of which I am trying to defend or present as to why one should be a theist.
The basics non proofs that atheists have given for the Q. (see first post of this thread) are pretty much like:
" because I don't believe in g(s) and it fits my definition of an A.
"oh, *?&9@* stupid troll"
"I don't believe those many proofs for G"
Or answering the Q with a Q:
" Did G write the B?
" Do you believe in S Us or Ds?"
I gave you one of my many reasons not believing, a god that directs/commands child killing I can't/won't believe in.
Valid logical reason.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
(May 29, 2018 at 2:41 pm)Ybe Wrote: downbeatplumb:
There isn't a god. (prove me wrong, I am always willing to view new evidence)
So it would be illogical to believe in a god.
There is no G so I am an A.
Trying to put what you said into a logical reason:
[Assertion No G]
P1 If there is no G it would be illogical to believe in G
P2 No G
C. it is illogical
If that is not what you meant to say, then the following would not apply:
Denying the antecedent, sometimes also called inverse error or fallacy of the inverse, is a formal fallacy of inferring the inverse from the original
statement. It is committed by reasoning in the form: If P, then Q. Therefore, if not P, then not Q.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent)
To prove you meant to say otherwise give a logical proof.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Sounds like you think you have the ability to judge E for G.
But (using A way of thinking)
Assertion - there is no convincing/sufficient E for As being able to logically reason that.
Proof:
P1. If A's can"t give convincing/sufficient E (that As are able to logically reason), then As have no ability to judge E for G.
P2. I agree that As can't give convincing/sufficient E (that As are able to logically reason).
C. So, it is true they have no ability to judge (any E for G presented)
(by modus ponens) - rule of logic stating that if a conditional statement (“if p then q ”) is accepted, and the antecedent ( p ) holds,
then the consequent ( q ) may be inferred. (ref google search)
To prove the premises false As would have to Give me convincing/sufficient E. So far not done.
I declare that the lack of evidence for a god is my evidence for gods non-existence.
Let me put it like this.
If I told you there was an elephant in my kitchen you would want to have evidence of said pachyderms unlikely position in my kitchen which, lets face it, has quite small doors.
If I then go and check and there is not elephant, not trace of said elephant and no way that the floor could have stood the weight of an elephant then it is reasonable to assume that the person telling you there was an elephant was either:
A: Mistaken.
B: Lying.
C: Mad.
So that lack of evidence FOR the elephant in the kitchen leads to my conclusion that there never was an elephant there. If the person then says "no REALLY ther WAS an elephant" then they'd better have something pretty convincing in the way of evidence.
This is where we are with god.
To put it another way.
Do you have evidence that there are no underpant gnomes?
If you have no evidence for there not being no underpant gnomes then you must believe in underpant gnomes. That's how you seem to think evidence works.
(May 30, 2018 at 12:05 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: Ybe's own statements:
"Proof:
P1. If A's can"t give convincing/sufficient E (that As are able to logically reason), then As have no ability to judge E for G.
P2. I agree that As can't give convincing/sufficient E (that As are able to logically reason).
C. So, it is true they have no ability to judge (any E for G presented"
Completely ABSURD P1, since the repeated claim is that we have seen no evidence for the existence of god. We also have clearly stipulated our evidence requirements. No evidence has been presented, so there is nothing to judge. Which, of course, makes this snobbish disrespect of others absolutely hilarious.
"we have seen no evidence for the existence of god" drfuzzy. Thats "YOUR own" P1 drfuzzy.
(You are the one claiming Ts give no convincing/sufficient E just as you said above.)
So, it "...makes this snobbish disrespect of others...", even more hilarious, as it is your own disrespect that you are talking about. No disrespect intended.
(May 29, 2018 at 6:08 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: ...Learn to use the quote function. You have mashed up my words in order to do....something. It is hard to discern what you intended because of the incoherent nonsense...
Ok, this forum quote function is a bit, odd? But what this cunt is doing cannot be accidental because he is so consistent.
I've just had a another look at the forum T&C and unlike most other sites there are no sanctions for using intentionally disruptive post formatting.
An enquiring mind need to know why.
It's amazing 'science' always seems to 'find' whatever it is funded for, and never the oppsite. Drich.
(May 30, 2018 at 12:05 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: Ybe's own statements: [Assertion No G] (We can assume that "G" means "god" -...
P1 If there is no G it would be illogical to believe in G ABSOLUTELY TRUE! BRAVO!
P2 No G Woopsie, here is where you slide for a lot of folks. The first premise started with IF, junior.
C. it is illogical What is illogical? (YB: see below same color)
That argument was a formulation of downbeatplumb's statement.
For the conclusion (which is the second part of P1) to be true, both premises would have to be true.
(if that is THEIR argument)
Now all an A would have to do is validate P2 (prove no G).
UH OH any evidence/proof an A would try to give someone can say:
1. That is unconvincing/sufficient evidence.
2. "Or" Perhaps there is some evidence you missed.
Lucky for you, this thread isn't about that, it is about seeing if As have a rational logical reason for being an A.
Unfortunately, as you have continued to show, we need to hear from someone else who might be able to represent the As better.
No offense, I know you are trying, but you need a little help. I would be glad to help you formulate any argument if you give something more than definitions. Usually Definitions are presented first then an argument:
A = one who lacks belief in g(s) (would be a definition)
X = reason
If A then x
A
so x
Or
If A then x
not x
so not A
(Just remember if you put the A definition as the reason that would be like saying)
If B is true, it will be not be written in the B
It is written in the B
So B is true
(Considered a circular argument)
![[Image: e65f4c6e34bcbe5be0369e75b6c03da897987f7d]](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/e65f4c6e34bcbe5be0369e75b6c03da897987f7d)
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
No disrespect intended.
